Kevin McCarthy Scum Again
Host Mike Emanuel lobbed every softball question he could to McCarthy, which gave McCarthy ample opportunity to turn the interview into a 14-minute infomercial of canned talking points.
He began by criticizing President Joe Biden's aid to Ukraine as "too slow."
MCCARTHY: If we would have taken those actions earlier instead of waiting until after Russia invaded, they probably never would have invaded had we done that sooner.
Emanuel pointed out that just this week, President Biden announced an additional $800 million in military aid. That's a total of $2.6 billion in security assistance, which included weapons. McCarthy, however, couldn't outline what President Biden could have done more, so he just said the thing about it being too slow again.
MCCARTHY: Ukraine was craving the ability to defend themselves. Had we moved the weapons to Ukraine earlier, that they could defend themselves, it would have saved thousands of lives and probably the decision of Putin not to enter.
It will surprise no one, other than the gullible voters he counts on to fall for his bullshit, that McCarthy was one of the many who saw nothing wrong with Donald Trump using military aid to extort Ukraine, and opposed both Trump's impeachments.
But if you think McCarthy's support for Ukraine and opposition to Vladimir Putin will last, here he is refusing to condemn the Putin wing of his caucus:
EMANUEL: Last week, 63 House Republicans voted against a symbolic resolution of unequivocal support for NATO. Are your colleagues wrong on this one?
MCCARTHY: No, there's a strong support for NATO moving forward. Always has been. NATO is in the process of defending themselves but the one thing we need to make sure these NATO countries spend the money, more than two percent.
Translation: He's gonna do nothing about the Putin wing, while pretending he is, and then use Trump's NATO rhetoric. It's the same kind of leadership that gets Marjorie Taylor Greene a wrist slap for attending a white nationalist convention, and makes him very disappointed with insurrectionist Madison Cawthorn only after Cawthorn starts yammering about cocaine orgies.
Of course, being scum is not new for McCarthy.
He after all, was the guy who lost his first chance at speaker when he said the quiet part out loud about the true nature of all the Benghazi investigations. Then Paul Ryan became speaker. Later, during a closed-door meeting prior to the 2016 election, McCarthy said out loud that he thought Putin was paying Dana Rohrabacher and Trump. Let's not forget all McCarthy's scummy moments relating to his phone calls with Trump on January 6.
All these moments of self-revealing cowardice and his devotion to the Trump/MAGA wing of his caucus may indeed make him the next failed GOP speaker of the House. He'd join the ranks of Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert. You know, if Matt Gaetz and the MAGA chumps don't screw him out of it first, that is.
But if it happens, then congratulations, Kevin McCarthy. Hope when your temporary joy at being speaker, passes, all the craven complicity will have been worth it.
Have a week.
Wonkette is fully funded by readers like you! If you love Wonkette, PAY US!
Your Weekly Dose Of GOP Non-Answers And BS, Courtesy Of The Sunday Shows!
The Republican Party has long given up on governance or the appearance of even trying. It's so plain that even when they publicly confess that truth, it's met with a shrug rather than any pushback.
Translation: We have no agenda other than obstructing like it's 2008!
It's nevertheless infuriating when the GOP tries to cover its bullshit with a thin veneer of legitimacy.
Roy Blunt on ABC's 'This Week'
A great example of this is GOP Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who got his own dedicated Wonkette post about this earlier today. Blunt was asked about where he stood on the upcoming vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Blunt decided to pretend he just really wanted to be a part of this historic moment, but just couldn't vote for this particular person:
BLUNT: Really, there are two criteria, I said immediately. One is, is the person qualified for the job? And two is, what's her judicial philosophy?
She's certainly qualified. [...] But the judicial philosophy seems to be not the philosophy of looking at what the law says and the Constitution says and applying that, but going through some method that allows you to try to look at the Constitution as a more flexible document, and even the law. And there are cases that show that that’s her view. [...] And I won't be supporting her but I'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment.
If only the very qualified Judge Jackson had answered that question about her judicial philosophy. Oh wait. We guess Blunt just missed it during the confirmation hearings or when it was reported by The Wall Street Journal or Slate or The New York Times or Des Moines Register. I'm sure once Sen. Blunt's staff does a quick Google search, he'll get right on confirming Judge Jackson.
Right? Right?
